Originally Posted by jimmycooper

I'm guessing the reason nobody has offered 'any reasonable, practical ideas or solutions as to how things will be different' is because most reasonable, practical people know how it's damn near impossible to in good faith predict such a thing. It's usually not until after a lot of trial and error a lot of risk and a lot failure that a new technology a new model, or some other future innovation can be truly considered as 'disruptive'. The only reasonable, practical prediction one can make with any type of certainty whatsoever is that there will be change. From what I can tell that's exactly what both Shap and Roald have done. How is that so difficult to understand?